Monthly crude oil imports (thousands of barrels per day) are about 33% higher now than they were 20 years ago (Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration).

Pres. Obama: We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years.

What do you mean by “we”? You don’t produce any oil.

See that decline in Federal Gulf of Mexico production from ~1.7 MMbbl/d to ~1.4 MMbbl/d since early 2010?

You actually did build that.

All of the increase in domestic US crude oil production has come from State and privately owned mineral leases. Production from Federal leases has declined by about 300,000 barrels per day since 2009 (Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration).

Drilling permits that once took 30 days to be approved now take more than 180 days. Even relatively simple things like the approval of development plan (DOCD) revisions are sometimes drawn out to nearly 300 days. As of a year ago, the average delays for independent oil companies are currently 1.4 years on the shelf and almost 2 years in deepwater:

While the permiting process has recovered a bit over the past year, it is still very slow (Source: Quest Offshore Resources).

Between the “permitorium” and high product prices, many of the best, most capable drilling rigs have been moved overseas. Once we manage to get permits approved, the delays in obtaining a rig can be almost as long as the permit delays were. In this “dynamic regulatory environment,” wells can’t be drilled quickly enough to compensate for decline rates, much less to increase production. This is why the production rate in the Gulf of Mexico is still 300,000 bbl/d lower than it was prior to Macondo. The only red tape you have cut, is red tape that your maladministration created.

Pres. Obama: So tonight, I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good.

What do you mean by “our oil and gas revenues”? You don’t generate any oil and gas revenue. The Federal gov’t does generate some revenue from the private sector development of Federal mineral leases.

Federal mineral revenues for FY 2012 were HALF of what they were in FY 2008!

The decline in Federal mineral revenues is really ironic considering the fact that the US Navy can’t afford to deploy a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf due to a lack of revenue. The reason for maintaining a strong naval presence in the region is the free flow of oil at market prices (the Carter Doctrine). The Navy only expects to “save several hundred million dollars” by not delaying the deployment of CVN 75 USS Harry S Truman. The royalty payments from the missing 300,000 bbl/d of production could have been as much as $1.8 billion and have more than covered the cost of the deployment.

What’s even more ironic? We’re importing 50% more from the Persian Gulf than just three years ago!

U.S. crude oil imports from the Persian Gulf have risen over the last three years.

The actions of this administration have both increased our need to maintain freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and reduced our means to do so.

125 thoughts on “SOTU: Energy Fabrications, Falsehoods and Fantasies”

Thank you for your research. The BS last night out of Washington was stunning I wonder when Americans are ever going to wake up to what is happening in their country. Your assessment regarding the energy industry is only the tip of (according to some other BS’rs the disappearing) iceberg.

I don’t come to this site for politics.
It’s particularly irritating to see posts like this when the beneficiaries of the argument are the oil industry, because other people will use this to “prove” links between sceptics and the oil industry.

What I find disturbing is the source of the President’s misinformation. Does he ask for information or an interpretation of data that supports his agenda? If he does not, what adviser or bureaucrat at what level substitutes misleading numbers for actual facts? How far down the hierarchy does this process go? Isn’t it inappropriate to feed the President of the United States false information? Maybe “distributing” isn’t the best word – scary is better.

another F word comes to mind…FRAUD. pollies need to be held accountable for their CAGW excesses:
14 Feb: UK Daily Mail: Hugo Duncan/Tim Shipman: King blames rising inflation on ‘own goals’ by ministers: Governor attacks green taxes and university fees
Sir Mervyn said squeeze on living standards will last for another three years
The Governor of the Bank of England warned that the unprecedented squeeze on living standards will last for a further three years as prices rise and wages stagnate.
But, in a coded attack on ministers, he said much of the pain was ‘self-inflicted’ because it stemmed from big increases in energy bills and tuition fees.
‘Whether it’s on financing education, green policies or other policies, what they have done is push up prices and that clearly makes our job in the short-run more difficult,’ Sir Mervyn said.
The average household energy bill is now more than £1,300 a year and has risen nearly 25 per cent since early 2011, with suppliers blaming green levies imposed by the Government…http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278368/King-blames-rising-inflation-goals-ministers-Governor-attacks-green-taxes-university-fees.html

What a load of pedantic nonsense much of this article is! It could have been an interesting article if David Middleton stuck to the facts, like in the section where he pointed out the problems the US government has created with red tape. However it is simply ridiculous to criticise Obama’s use of the word “we” when he is obviously referring to the American people, not himself and his pals.
How on earth do you expect a head of state to speak? I am sure that Middleton would have had no objection to Obama using the word “we” if he had been espousing right-wing policies.

“…to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good.”
Off oil and onto coal. Right.
Check out the wiki article on coal emissions (which lists CO2 as a pollutant):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station
Coal emits three more sulfur dioxide than petroleum and twice the nitrous oxide, and I think we’re all pretty much agreed that SO2 and NO are serious pollutants.

“Nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime,” Obama, Feb 12th, 2013.
The US ran trillion dollar+ annual deficits for the past four years (the past four years are the highest in history). Isn’t it comforting to know that the US will stick with trillion dollar deficits but steer bravely and steadfastly away from one trillion dollar and 10 cents annual deficit!
“The dime stops here”
It is disingenuous to place emphasis on “not increasing the deficit” when the nation is actually hemmorrhaging!

Nice little post David! Can we expect a deeper analysis of some of the information provided? For instance, I’m a very strong advocate for reducing US dependence on foreign oil, particularly from the mid-east. However, our recent reduction in imports isn’t really a positive sign. It isn’t coincidental that the recent reduction has occurred with our recent economic decline.
And, because of the alarmists dense misunderstanding about our reliance on oil and their strange preoccupation with whirlygigs and suncatchers, we can never overstate the fact that all the windmills and solar panels in country have absolutely nothing to do with decreasing our dependence on oil. They are not related.
For those whining about the political aspect of the post, Zero is teh one who brought out the intentional deception. Climate science, energy policy, and politics are impossible to separate if one is to have an open and honest discussion of such. It is altogether right and proper, in a free society, to correct our leaders when they are wrong. It is even more imperative to point out intentional deception. Although, one can make a case that Zero is ignorant and simply parroting what someone told him, so “intentional” could be questioned.

@Almah Geddon
The recycled symbol is mine. It’s a bit of subtle humor. The background is called “recycled paper.” I pasted the EIA and ONRR images into PowerPoint, annotated them and saved them as PNG’s.

AndyL says:
February 13, 2013 at 11:32 pm
I don’t come to this site for politics.
It’s particularly irritating to see posts like this when the beneficiaries of the argument are the oil industry, because other people will use this to “prove” links between sceptics and the oil industry.
Why did you come to this site?
Roy says:
February 14, 2013 at 1:38 am
How on earth do you expect a head of state to speak?
Some facts, occasionally, perhaps.

Roy says:
February 14, 2013 at 1:38 am
What a load of pedantic nonsense much of this article is!…….How on earth do you expect a head of state to speak?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I expect the leader of my country to at least have the courage of his convictions. He gets up in front of the world and tries to take credit for increased domestic oil production when we see him obstructing it. We see him try to take credit for the decrease in oil imports, but, he doesn’t honestly tell the people why. David was spot on by correcting that mis-articulation. Zero has worked to thwart oil production. I expect my head of state to be honest about his actions and advocacy.

Roy on February 14, 2013 at 1:38 am
What a load of pedantic nonsense much of this article is! It could have been an interesting article if David Middleton stuck to the facts, like in the section where he pointed out the problems the US government has created with red tape. However it is simply ridiculous to criticise Obama’s use of the word “we” when he is obviously referring to the American people, not himself and his pals.
How on earth do you expect a head of state to speak? I am sure that Middleton would have had no objection to Obama using the word “we” if he had been espousing right-wing policies.
I expect the President of the United States to not speak like a Third World dictator, to not lie about easily checked facts and, most importantly, I expect him to understand his role in our constitutional republic.
The President is the commander in chief of our nation’s armed forces and the chief executive officer of our Federal administrative overhead. The private sector does not work for or report to him. As CEO of our Federal administrative overhead, his only energy function is to ensure that federally owned energy resources are exploited in a manner in which these United States derive the most value.

The way Obama is reported over here by AljaBeeba (BBC) you would have thought that the Sun shone out of his, well, derriere! The over weening sycophancy is literally sick making, he cannot put a foot wrong in their eyes, & all republicans are racist, gun toting, bigots, all in the pay of Big Oil! It really is appalling at times. When I listen to or watch the news reporting on the USA I always go to Newsmax website to read what is really going on. All we get over here is what the BBC wants the “people” to know! As for misrepresenting the facts, he’s a lawyer & a politician, what did you really expect from him? When will Americans give up on their racial/slavery guilt trip? Criticism seems stifled because a black man is in the White House, & as usual the left always play the “race” card at every opportunity to that effect!

The article is good and true. It is inevitable that politics would affect our lives, and the politics of deliberate falsehood will affect them badly. For those who find that factor irritating, or who wish to ignore it for their own political reasons, I can only say that they are probably the same people who blamed the Bush administration for everything from wars to head lice, and I commend to them a healthy dose of objectivity.

AndyL says:
February 13, 2013 at 11:32 pm
I don’t come to this site for politics.
It’s particularly irritating to see posts like this when the beneficiaries of the argument are the oil industry, because other people will use this to “prove” links between sceptics and the oil industry.
AndyL this is a post about federal energy policies. The beneficiaries are consumers of oil/gas products. The beneficiaries are the citizens of this country with a stronger national security stance. And finally my scepticism has nothing to do with the “oil industry”, it is based on logical thinking, an appreciation of history, and a non-politically correct review of the facts.

He speaks with a forked tongue. He clearly has a “green” agenda, which contradicts everything else he says on energy independence, and on rebuilding America. The “green” agenda will do nothing but force energy prices up, hurting the poor and middle class most, and killing American jobs since it forces our prices up, making our goods less competitive overseas.
But that’s Obama, our Liar-In-Chief.

@Andy L:
No, the beneficiaries are you and me. I don ‘t know about you, but I like having cheap gas.
Having been involved in an accident where the only thing that saved my wife and me was the fact that we were in a 6,000 pound vehicle. If we’d had a “smart” car, we’d be dead. I like being able to afford the gas to drive my new 6,000 pound vehicle. It’s smarter for my continued longevity.
That means cheap gas, and that means cheap oil, and that means we need to do more to free up production here, at home.
Political or not, it benefits the consumers.

I hope it’s just a problem local to Opera 11.50 on Linux, but none of the graphs are showing up on my computer. They’re out there at photobucket. I was able to download and view one manually (wget and xv). But Opera doesn’t seem to be quite able to cope with the convoluted CSS in the webpage. Hopefully other browsers can do better.

Obama’s true genius is that he can say anything he wants and is never held accountable for it, that he can place blame on anyone he wants, take credit for everything he wants, and is never responsible for how his policies turn out. Meanwhile in the important news of the day. Marco Rubio actually drank a sip of water on TV, and is therefor clearly not qualified to be in any public office and should resign immediately.

Wow – talk about missing the point.
It is wrong to write off this post as merely “political” (although I admit, it was delivered with a decidedly anti-0bama tone).
FACT: 0bama lied repeatedly on this topic. If Dubya had done that, you can BET every last error, mistake, or “lie” would have been called out in detail on every news show and every paper, front page. There is your “political” story.
FACT: 0bama made claims that are, both on the surface and deeper down, completely wrong, and intended to leave Americans with disinformation.
* America is buying more “foreign oil” than 20 years ago, but 0bama claimed otherwise. This is either an error, or an outright lie.
* It is MORE difficult and time consuming to get permission to produce oil in the US, but 0bama claimed it’s easier. That is an outright lie.
* More oil is moving from the Persian Gulf now than a few years ago. This is a DANGEROUS and UNSTABLE situation that leaves the US even more vulnerable to terrorism and other actions. Does nobody alive today remember the Oil Crisis of the 70s? If not, you should learn about it. It was a valuable lesson on being dependent on OPEC.
Also, the concept of using oil and gas revenues to drive development in reducing the use of oil and gas is some of the worst economics any sane person could imagine. In Alberta “we” started the Heritage Fund in 1976 as a “buffer” for future finances. The majority of that money was put into various oil and gas projects, hospitals, irrigation, agriculture, and lots of it was frittered away and wasted by bad government decisions. (reference http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/alberta-heritage-savings-trust-fund )
Imagine, if you will, ANY level of government in control of a vaguely monitored, massive fund. Whatever your political bent, the “other side” will be in control of it at some point. Do you want that? I don’t.
Why, oh why, does nobody in government seem capable of learning from the mistakes of others? If a massive fund is created to suck away a percentage of oil industry revenue, then it should be used STRICTLY for the long term benefit of PEOPLE… things like infrastructure, roads, water supplies, power grid updates, etc. Using that money to develop “alternative energy” will end up simply transferring wealth to an elite group of upper class con men. If that doesn’t seem credible, it is exactly what has already happened in the last 4 years, and will continue to happen.

John F. Hultquist asks on February 13, 2013 at 11:56 pmWhat I find disturbing is the source of the President’s misinformation. Does he ask for information or an interpretation of data that supports his agenda?
Mr. Hulquist, you assume Obama is merely mis-informed? Perhaps he is simply lieing.
AndyL says February 13, 2013 at 11:32 pmI don’t come to this site for politics.
Unfortunately, the whole global warming scam is about politics.

@ James Sexton says: February 14, 2013 at 2:56 am
” correcting that mis-articulation.” – Mis-articulation? Even my spell checker does not recognize that BS – just call it what it is – a bald faced lie.

Sorry, but there are ways of making the points in this post without it coming across as a right-wing pro-big-oil rant. A straight-forward factual analysis would be more effective as well. The stuff about ‘we’ and the federal v private argument is pure politics and just not neessary

Do not forget that they are trying to run the Navy on biofuels which cost as much as ten times the normal cost for fuel. The Navy surely cannot afford that!
There is no way, short of putting nuclear reactors in cars that they can produce motive energy for cars that has the energy density of hydrocarbons. Natural gas maybe, but that’s still of the evil fuels, despite our having a lot of it.
The UK initially estimated that they had 5.3 trillion cu ft of natural gas. Now they estimate that it’s more like 1300 to 1700 trillion cu ft, enough for about 1500 years! Their greenies are going to have a rough time soon as people figure out that they are literally sitting on a huge energy source.

philjourdan says:
February 14, 2013 at 5:05 am
@ James Sexton says: February 14, 2013 at 2:56 am
” correcting that mis-articulation.” – Mis-articulation? Even my spell checker does not recognize that BS – just call it what it is – a bald faced lie.
================================================================
Oh, sure, the one time I try to be charitable to Teh Won, and I get beat up for it! 😀 (Note: if you add the word to your spell checker’s vocabulary, then it will recognize it) 😉

I remain surprised that the USA seems unable or unwilling to adjust oil usage by the mechanism used widely in Europe, and especially here in the UK. The rulers simply impose a tax or duty on fuel sales (gasoline and diesel) that is over 60% of the pump price. Transport companies don’t like it, the public hates it, manufacturing companies complain about the extra costs they have, and our roads remain crowded and ill maintained. Who in the USA will bite the bullet?

AndyL says:
February 14, 2013 at 5:12 amSorry, but there are ways of making the points in this post without it coming across as a right-wing pro-big-oil rant.
That’s odd. It doesn’t come accross that way to me, or anyone else apparently.
Concern troll much?

blockquote>Bair Polaire says:
February 14, 2013 at 3:07 am
The tone of this post is a little childish.
“You don’t produce any oil.” Really?
My pet peeve regarding Mr. Obama’s use of “we” when discussing oil production started here:

Now, under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. (Applause.) That’s important to know. Over the last three years, I’ve directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We’re opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth and then some…

Lie #1:“Under my administration America is producing more oil than at any time in the last eight years.”

Mr. President, with all due respect (by which I mean zero-point-zero), America isn’t producing any oil. America is a place. To many of us, America is a concept (the antithesis of Obamaland). But, America doesn’t produce any oil… Not a drop. Oil companies drill for and produce crude oil in the United States. Oil companies are not “under” your administration. You were elected President of the United States. As such, you are the Chief Executive of the United States Federal government (our nation’s administrative overhead), Commander-in-Chief of our nation’s armed forces and nothing else. No oil company is “under” your administration.

Lie #2:“We’ve opened up new areas for exploration.”

You haven’t opened any “new areas for exploration” that your administration or previous administrations didn’t shut down. Announcing that you might allow future lease sales or will consider approving future seismic survey permits doesn’t open anything.

Lie #3:“We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high.”

First the math… Baker Hughes tabulates a weekly rotary rig count. The total number of drilling rigs operating in the United States roughly doubled during the Bush-41 administration and currently stands right about where it was when you and your fellow Greentards took office. The US rotary rig count hasn’t “quadrupled” since 1987, much less since you took office.
Furthermore, the only rigs over which you have any significant regulatory authority are operating in offshore Federal waters. That rig population has been almost cut in half during your mis-administration.
Now the “we”… As it pertains to drilling for and producing oil and gas, “you” are not part of the “we.” You are part of the “them.”

Lie #4:“We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipelines to circle the Earth and then some.”

Once again, who the heck is “we”? “You” aren’t part of the “we” that laid the pipelines. “You” are part of the “them” that interfere with the laying of pipelines.
While the industry may very well have laid “enough new oil and gas pipelines to circle the Earth and then some” since January 2009, President Obama played no constructive role in that process.

On top of the lies, the President tossed in some peachy logical fallacies…

Strawman #1:“But as I have said repeatedly, the problem is we use more than 20% of the world’s oil and we only have 2% of the world’s proven oil reserves.”

Publicly traded US oil companies have to “book” proved reserves according to very strict SEC rules. Here’s a very simplistic example…
In this scenario, a well is drilled up-dip to a dry hole with an oil show. The entire volume can be booked as proved because the down-dip well has an oil-water contact…

In this scenario, the down-dip well has no oil show, just wet sandstone. If the oil well was drilled on the basis of a seismic hydrocarbon indicator, the volume down-dip of the lowest known oil has to be booked as probable…

When the production from the well exceeds the original booked volume, the operator can increase the proved reserves on the basis of cumulative oil production vs. water cut or pressure decline, depending on the drive mechanism.The resource potential in the United States is huge. The only obstacles to converting the resource potential into proved reserves and, more importantly, production are the US gov’t and environmental terrorists activists.
We (as in the oil & gas industry) worked very hard, spent our own money and that of our investors to “build that” (the U.S. domestic oil production. The only thing more infuriating than the U.S. gov’t making it more difficult for us to “build that,” is for politicians to claim credit for our success.

As a daily visitor to this fine website, I value the information and illuminating scientific discussion. While I appreciate the information and data contained in this post, even as a Rebublican, I find the pejorative barbs contained within the narrative offensive, unhelpful and counterproductive to honest discussion.

“Pres. Obama: So tonight, I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good.”
This sounds like batteries or hydrogen. However lest “we” forget it was Bush that started the Hydrogen program (to the tune of 1.2 billion) and Obama that canceled it:http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2003/05/hydrogens-dirty-secrethttp://www.treehugger.com/cars/obama-kills-hydrogen-car-funding.html
People tend to side with one or the other (kind of like a football team) and that is always a mistake since politicians tend to have both better and worse parts to their programs (depending upon your personal viewpoint and standards). However in recent history I don’t see either side doing especially well.

higley7 says:
February 14, 2013 at 5:22 am
Do not forget that they are trying to run the Navy on biofuels which cost as much as ten times the normal cost for fuel. The Navy surely cannot afford that!
[…]

How Green Was My Bankruptcy? U.S. Navy Edition.
The Navy and DOE are spending $210 million to build two biofuel refineries to produce $27/gal biofuel even though there is no realistic scenario in which biofuel costs less than twice as much as fossil fuels and the production will not exceed a tiny fraction of the Navy’s needs…

According to a Reuters report, in 2009 the Pentagon paid Solazyme $8.5 million for 20,055 gallons of algae-based biofuel, which works out to $424 a gallon. Last year the order was 450,000 gallons, the biggest-ever biofuel order from government, at a cost of $12 million, which works out to more than $26 a gallon. Blended with conventional fuels, the cost is supposed to be $15 a gallon but under no scenario is the cost of biofuels less than twice as much as conventional fuel. Even so, the plan is 50 percent biofuels for the Navy by 2016. But some analysts see a problem on the practical side.
James Bartis of the RAND Corporation says the amount of biofuels that can be produced is “a drop in the bucket” compared to the vast needs of the Pentagon, which uses 321,000 barrels of oil a day. Bartis estimates the maximum amount of fuel from chicken fat at 30,000 barrels a day, with up to 50,000 barrels a day from other sources such as seeds. That’s not nearly enough, so the plan makes no economic or practical sense. It did, however, serve up a revelation on the media side.LINK

Let’s look at the RAND report…

Testing and certification of hydro treated renewable oils. Algae-derived fuel is a research topic, not an emerging option that the military can use to supply its operations, and cultivating seed oils affordably without adverse effects on climate change has yet to be demonstrated. Because the prospects for appreciable domestic production of hydro treated oils over the next decade are so uncertain, the Department of Defense should discontinue large-scale testing and certification efforts (other than laboratory R&D).
[…]
Much of the Defense Department’s work to develop alternative fuel production technologies is based on the unfounded assumption that the military will gain a direct benefit from having access to alternative fuels that can substitute for military fuels.
[…]
For the most part, the Defense Department’s efforts to develop the technology to produce alternative fuels consists of a collection of independent projects, each focused on demonstrating the technical viability of a single concept for producing military fuels. Demonstrating technical viability is easy; consider the history of photovoltaic power and fuel cells. But demonstrating affordable and environmentally sound production—i.e., commercial viability—is difficult…
[…]
For hydro treated renewable oils, the prospects for commercial production depend on the feedstock. For fuels derived from waste oils and animal fats, a small amount of commercial production directed at the civilian diesel fuel market is scheduled to come on line in 2010. But overall production potential in the next decade is unlikely to exceed 25,000 barrels per day.
[…]
For algae-derived hydro treated oil produced via photosynthesis or fermentation of cellulosic materials, the scale of the technical challenge and the early development status of the enabling technology strongly suggest that appreciable amounts of commercial production are highly unlikely through 2020.
[…]RAND

What the US Navy is attempting to do is the equivalent of building a home-version of the UNIVAC in 1957. The only difference is that in 1957, there was no alternative to the UNIVAC.

“Bartis estimates the maximum amount of fuel from chicken fat at 30,000 barrels a day, with up to 50,000 barrels a day from other sources such as seeds.”

The top two oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico are currently producing more than 50,000 barrels per day.
As of July 2012, there were 21 oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico producing more than 10,000 barrels per day. Those 21 wells produced a combined 322,000 barrels of oil per day. Federal Offshore Gulf of Mexico Field Production has averaged 1.3 million barrels of oil per day in 2012, despite the lingering effects of the unlawful moratorium and permitorium.GOM vs Seeds & Chicken Fat
Despite the fact that biofuels can’t provide even a fraction of the Navy’s consumption at more than twice the cost of conventional fuels, the Navy is proceeding with full-scale production (not just R&D).
The biofuel is currently about $27/gal.
They blend it (50-50)with conventional fuel runs around $3.30 gal. The result is a blend that costs about $15 gal.
They claim that they can get the biofuel cost down to about $11/gal, where the cost of the blend would be about $7/gal.
The DOD uses about 320,000 bbl of oil per day. The RAND paper says that the total national potential for biofuel production by 2020 is in the neighborhood of 50,000 bbl/day.
I guess the “good news” is that the low production rate will prevent the DOD from p!$$ing away more than $433 million per year on biofuel between now and 2016. Of course, if they weren’t p!$$ing away $433 million per year on biofuel, they could afford to deploy that second CVN to the Persian Gulf.

Only if you are ignorant of the fact that crude oil (petroleum) and refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel, lubricants, etc.) are two different things.
They are as different as iron ore and steel.

CodeTech says:
February 14, 2013 at 4:55 am
Wow – talk about missing the point.
It is wrong to write off this post as merely “political” (although I admit, it was delivered with a decidedly anti-0bama tone).
[…]

“The stuff about ‘we’ and the federal v private argument is pure politics and just not necessary”
So let me get this straight, AndyL. The President can lie with impunity because he is a politician engaging in pure politics. He can take credit for accomplishments he personally tried to squash. You feel justified in defending his right to delude the people, heaping praise upon himself (via his vague use of the word ‘we’) while vilifying those who actually produced the accomplishment. Is that how you feel?
The point that Mr. Middleton is making is that the President does not have complete control over the private development of energy, but he does have more authority over federal energy production. Where the president has authority, production was way down. Where private entities have more authority, production was up, despite the Presidents policies and limited powers that made it more difficult to accomplish this achievement. Simply put, the President took credit for something his actions opposed.
I am not sure how Mr. Middleton could have pointed out this blatant deception without making the distinction between federal v private energy production. I am not sure how he could of revealed this callus lie without pointing out the Presidents vague us of the word ‘we’. Perhaps you could rewrite Mr. Middleton’s words in such a way that would reveal the Presidents deception without a discussion of federal v private. It would be like writing about Nixon’s downfall without the use of the words ‘Watergate’ and ‘cover up’. The words are rather vital to the story, aren’t they?
If a character in a movie takes credit for something that he actually tried to thwart, that character is instantly recognized as scum, and is almost always the antagonist of the story. At best, he is viewed as pathetic. Yet, when the President does it in the midst of a stream of lies, you feel the need to defend him, by attacking those who reveal the deception. Why is that? What is this really about? Is it the ‘politics’ of which you accuse Mr. Middleton?

Bill from Pittsburgh says:
February 14, 2013 at 6:42 am
As a daily visitor to this fine website, I value the information and illuminating scientific discussion. While I appreciate the information and data contained in this post, even as a Rebublican, I find the pejorative barbs contained within the narrative offensive, unhelpful and counterproductive to honest discussion.

You should have seen my original draft… 😉
I scrubbed the final draft pretty hard to remove pejorative barbs, missing a few typos in the process. Perhaps you can point out the pejorative barbs and I’ll ask to have them redacted.

Surprising? Since when is it a requirement for a politician to be accurate and honest? The job is closer to being a fiction author that has a hidden agenda that usually involves inventing ways to get at your cash.

After the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico BP deserved to be fined and punished. Other companies did not. BP’s record of infractions was terrible, but others were not. This may be a generalization, but it sure seemed to me that where other companies spent millions and even billions making wells safer, BP spent millions and even billions on politics (and perhaps bribes.)
Obama’s entire policy after the Gulf oil spill seemed aimed at making it very difficult to drill, and also at punishing oil companies in general, whether they did wrong or not. Over and over, as I read the news, I would go into a slow burn about his bans.
The fact oil companies have done so well, against such adversity, is amazing to me. I honestly expected we’d be in serious trouble by now, due to Obama’s idiotic actions.
For Obama to take credit for any increase in oil production anywhere is utter gall.
The mainstream media never will speak truth to power, these days. Therefore I am thankful Dave has gotten some of these facts out for the public to see. If his tone is a bit peevish, I don’t blame him one bit.

Robin Edwards says:
February 14, 2013 at 5:59 am
I remain surprised that the USA seems unable or unwilling to adjust oil usage by the mechanism used widely in Europe, and especially here in the UK. The rulers simply impose a tax or duty on fuel sales (gasoline and diesel) that is over 60% of the pump price. Transport companies don’t like it, the public hates it, manufacturing companies complain about the extra costs they have, and our roads remain crowded and ill maintained. Who in the USA will bite the bullet?”
You are absolutely correct. I maintain that gas could easily be $12 or $15 a gallon and the roads would still be packed full of cars and trucks every single minute of every single day. I’ve debated at what price per gallon would it actually start decreasing the number of miles Americans drive? Would it be $20 per gallon? $25? Certainly an instant jump to that number would cause a momentary stall in traffic, but it would resume once the shock was over. If the price gradually climbed there would be complaining but not effect on traffic. But to what price could it plateau before impacting traffic?

AndyL says:
February 13, 2013 at 11:32 pmI don’t come to this site for politics.
It’s particularly irritating to see posts like this when the beneficiaries of the argument are the oil industry, because other people will use this to “prove” links between sceptics and the oil industry.
On the contrary, energy issues are closely tied up with climate. We dont have to kow-tow to the libero-fascist elite and their genocidal loathing of the fossil fuel industry. They can put their predjudices where the sun does not shine – they have no place here. There is absolutely no reason not to have a serious discussion of oil and energy related issues.

We ARE importing less oil than in 20 years, IF you look at percentage of oil used. The president could have been clearer about this. However, the percentage is a more relevant measure if you compare present to past, as you have to factor in population growth.

David,
Great post.
If you are seeking a larger audience however, stop falling into the Alinsky trap of writing mad.
The only hope we have of convincing a wider audience of how bad this Administration’s policies are is to stick as close as possible to the facts.
Leave the hysteric arm waving and hyperbole to the climate/enviro extremists.
Stick to the facts of how bad the policies are and it will be those pushing the policies who will shoot themselves in the foot by way of temper tantrums, etc.
Your stats showing how blatantly wrong the oil import assertion is should be the focus, not which pronoun was chosen in the speech.
Respectfully,

Bair Polaire says:
February 14, 2013 at 3:07 am
The tone of this post is a little childish.
“You don’t produce any oil.” Really?
—————————————————————
Maybe. Some might argue that the President opened this door himself here:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

(President Obama July 2012)
Since President Obama was the one who brought up who did what in the first place, I don’t think it’s outrageous to frame responses in this light.

NotBuyingIt says:
February 14, 2013 at 6:51 am
…
People tend to side with one or the other (kind of like a football team) and that is always a mistake since politicians tend to have both better and worse parts to their programs (depending upon your personal viewpoint and standards). However in recent history I don’t see either side doing especially well.
——————————————————————-
I absolutely agree. I’m not much interested in tearing up the President’s B.S. when all Presidents from both parties have basically been B.S.’ing the public since time out of mind in their SOTU’s. It generally does seem to come across as just rooting for my own team, so what’s the real point? If people don’t understand that Presidents B.S. then nothing I can say is going to help them anyway.

MostlyHarmless says:Roy says:
February 14, 2013 at 1:38 am
How on earth do you expect a head of state to speak?
Some facts, occasionally, perhaps.
It was perfectly obvious that I was referring to David Middleton’s criticism of the use of the word we by Obama. I pointed out that it is quite natural for a head of state to use the word we when referring to his country’s people. David Middleton’s response that the private sector does not work for or report to him [Obama] is a ridiculous evasion of the point that I was making. What nationality are most of the people in the US private sector? Are they mainly US citizens or do you think they are mainly immigrants?
Did George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy, Ronald Reagan or any American president you care to mention never use the word “we” when talking about the American people?
No wonder Obama was re-elected when some of the criticism directed at him is so irrational.

MikeN says:
February 14, 2013 at 7:41 am
It’s possible the December and January numbers continue the downward trend in foreign oil, making his claim true.

No. It isn’t possible. We’re talking more that 2 million barrels per day.
In 1992, the average total crude oil imports were 6.1 million barrels per day. In 2011, the average was 8.9 million barrels per day. Over the most recent 12 month period (Dec-11 through Nov-12) the average was 8.6 million barrels per day.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to separate this issue from politics and the idiocy of government, both Democrat and Republican. Justifying what Obama has done by claiming that Bush did it too only makes an case for less government involvement. Bush pushed for fuel cells and ethanol from switchgrass, and Obama pushed solar, wind, and corn ethanol, all bad ideas. Lawyers making technical decisions for political gain is not working out very well.
Unencumbered by the need to be PC, I can call the President what he is, a serial liar. Lying works for him, especially during a campaign, so that’s why he is on a perpetual campaign. Fly in, make a speech, no questions are asked, the people cheer, back on the taxpayer-supplied airplane, repeat.
Thank you Mr. Middleton for taking the time to bring the energy and security issue to light. Why would we reduce our forces in the gulf at this time, when that area is so unstable, more unstable than in probably the last 20 years? Iran will have a bomb with means to deliver it soon, Egypt is near revolution again, Syria is near collapse, Iraq is a disaster waiting to happen, the stability of most of north Africa is questionable, etc. Obviously, the risk analysis that CIA undoubtedly prepared was rejected since it did not reinforce the Presidents position.
We should be focused on achieving energy independence asap, not trying to slow permitting, close coal fired plants, and find some way to stop fracking. Government is failing us, and Obama’s answer is more government.

S. Meyer says:
February 14, 2013 at 8:14 am
We ARE importing less oil than in 20 years, IF you look at percentage of oil used. The president could have been clearer about this. However, the percentage is a more relevant measure if you compare present to past, as you have to factor in population growth.

If you actually looked at the percentages, you would see that the U.S. imported 46% of its crude oil in 1992. In 2011 it was 61%. Over the most recent 12 months of data, it has been 57%.
On a percentage basis, our crude oil imports are still higher than they were in 1997.
However, 8 to 9 million barrels per day is not less than 6 million barrels per day, no matter how you spin it. His false claim is derived from the sum of crude oil and refined products.
Oil + Refined Products ≠ Oil

Roy says:
February 14, 2013 at 9:14 am
MostlyHarmless says:
Roy says:
February 14, 2013 at 1:38 am
How on earth do you expect a head of state to speak?
Some facts, occasionally, perhaps.
It was perfectly obvious that I was referring to David Middleton’s criticism of the use of the word we by Obama. I pointed out that it is quite natural for a head of state to use the word we when referring to his country’s people. David Middleton’s response that the private sector does not work for or report to him [Obama] is a ridiculous evasion of the point that I was making. What nationality are most of the people in the US private sector? Are they mainly US citizens or do you think they are mainly immigrants?
Did George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy, Ronald Reagan or any American president you care to mention never use the word “we” when talking about the American people?
No wonder Obama was re-elected when some of the criticism directed at him is so irrational.

“We” as in the American people do not produce oil or generate oil & gas revenues, any more than “we” as in the American people generate Wal-Mart’s revenue or “we” as in the American people build cars or “we” as in the American people play Major League Baseball or “we” as in the American people farm crops or “we” as in the American people perform neurosurgery.
My objection is to the collectivist (AKA communist) use of “we.” Now, I might not be so peeved by it, if not for this classic…

“Under my administration America is producing more oil than at any time in the last eight years.”

oldfossil says:
February 14, 2013 at 1:55 am“…to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good.”
Off oil and onto coal. Right.
Wrong. Off oil and onto liquified natural gas.
Burning natural gas emits much less SO2 and NO2 than coal or oil.
And CO2, but CO2 is not a pollutant.

A boom in oil production from the shale formations of North Dakota and Texas has the U.S. on a course to cut its reliance on imported crude oil to about 42 percent this year, the lowest level in two decades.

Irrespective of the EIA bureaucrat’s narrative, the EIA’s data show that over the most recent 12 months (Dec-11 through Nov-12) the US imported 54% of its crude oil consumption.

My understanding of what David wrote was “WE” stands for oil/gas produced from leases on federal land.
I certainly understand his point of view on the “WE” Farmers went ballistic over the statement.By 2025, America’s farms, forests and ranches will provide 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States, while continuing to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed and fiber.
Farmers also were royally P.O. when they were reduced to “Stakeholder” by the USDA. A stakeholder is a third party holding property while the true owner is determined. This become a bit more scary when coupled with the USDA’s second move.
“Premises Identification:” “The Legal effect of this registration is unknown, because there has been nothing
like it before, permanent federal registration of citizens property… The word premises is a synonym for the word tenement. A definition of the word tenement in law is: “Property, such as land, rents, or franchises, held by one person leasing it to another.
Black’s Law Dictionary, premises, in the context of estates and property, means: lands and tenaments, buildings, an estate, the subject matter of a conveyance, land and appurtenances thereto…”link
I have learned the hard way when ever someone starts uses the word “WE” when referring to my property he is a thief.

@Gail Combs,
My beef is with Obama’s use of “we” regarding any oil production… Or any production and/or manufacture of anything. I don’t doubt that he is not the first President to speak this way. But he is the first President I am aware of to say things like this:

“Under my administration America is producing more oil than at any time in the last eight years.”

And like this:

If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

We (as in the people of the United States of America) may have won World War II (no offense intended to our allies) and put a man on the Moon… But “we” do very few things in that manner.
And I suppose, technically speaking, “we” didn’t put a man on the Moon. We just paid for it with our tax dollars. Engineers, scientists, pilots and regular working stiffs with Grumman Aviation, North American Rockwell, NASA and a whole host of other businesses, agencies and academic institutions put a man on the Moon.

I find posts more interesting, educational, and entertaining when the author has a style. Some examples: James Taranto of the WSJ, Luboš Motl of the reference frame, Willis E. of WUWT, and the current post. So, just two comments. When a politician gives a political speech responses are pre-ordained to be political also. No big deal there. To the thing about the President using the term “we”, I understand it to be entirely appropriate. However, insofar as the President is also famous for have said “you didn’t build that” (and other strange things) he opens himself up for jocularity — such language and words otherwise ought not to draw attention.
Anyhow, the term “we” can be used in several ways, and is repeatedly.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_plural

Why in the world do we need 2 Aircraft carrier groups in that area. The firepower of ONE aircraft carrier group is more than the US Navy in WW2.
Two aircraft carriers are a total waste of money…..and we do NOT have any money.
IF, somehow, Fed oil taxes brought in MORE revenue, you use it to lower the deficit. NOT be a liberal and think of some dumb way to spend it.
Conservatives are demanding accountability. Finally.

Putting a man on the moon was the easy part. Returning him safely to Earth, that was a little more complicated… and within a decade, A decade that started with monochrome television, where the word “digital” meant “on your fingers”, the only rockets were right from the V2 program, nuclear weapons were considered a usable tactical weapon, cars were gigantic boats that sometimes got single-digit mileage, and I could go on.
Having a major goal was a unifying force for the entire decade, an untold technological revolution occurred. NASA meant something. We still say “it ain’t rocket science”, even though rocket science is pretty much a direct application of Newton’s laws, gyroscopes, and computational power.
I know that many people believed, and still believe, that putting a man on the moon was a stupid goal, that it was wasteful and “all that money” should have gone to social programs and feeding the hungry. If not for NASA and the rapid development of aerospace and other technologies you wouldn’t be having this discussion on an Internet, we might well be decades behind where we are now.
The thing that still amazes me is that it came from a Democrat President. Because nobody on that side of the aisle has since shown anything like the leadership and practicality that JFK demonstrated. He even stood up to a major enemy with backbone and direct action. Freaked the world out at the time, but hey, it worked.

Also meant to comment: I own a business. Often when I’m talking on the phone or discussing what my company does, I use the phrase “we”. I learned this in my early days working, where the concept of “we” meant “the company”. It makes it sound like, you know, the Tokyo office and the London office and all of our staff. Of course, my business is a one-man operation…
While I don’t have a problem with zero using the term “we”, I DO have a problem with him using the word this way. Saying “we” did something, when in fact he has done as much as possible to inhibit those accomplishments. There’s a good time to use the phrase “in spite of all I tried, ‘we’ still did all this stuff”.

Camburn says:
February 14, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Why in the world do we need 2 Aircraft carrier groups in that area. The firepower of ONE aircraft carrier group is more than the US Navy in WW2.
[…]

The point wasn’t that we need to have 1, 2 or 3 CVN’s in the region. I’m not even sure that carriers are the right tool for maintaining freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf.
The point is that the Obama administration suddenly can’t afford 2 because it costs several hundred million dollars per year. The same Obama administration also mismanaged our [1] Federal mineral resources so badly that they have cut the ONRR’s annual revenue from $24 billion to $12 billion.
[1] The Federally owned mineral resources are actually “our” resources. Although “we” (as in the American people) don’t drill the wells and produce the oil & gas. “We” rely on our administrative overhead (the US gov’t) to ensure that those resources are developed and that “we” (as in the American people) derive the maximum potential value from that development.

CodeTech says:
February 14, 2013 at 12:35 pm
“The thing that still amazes me is that it came from a Democrat President. Because nobody on that side of the aisle has since shown anything like the leadership and practicality that JFK demonstrated.”
Don’t know your age but Democrats then, such as Kennedy, were more like Republicans of today. Kennedy recognized that over taxing was very bad and pushed through changes to the tax code. That is directly opposite of Democrats today. Republicans back then were far more conservative than they are now. The change into what we have today started shortly thereafter with the election of Lyndon Johnson and his “Great Society” ideas.

Camburn says:
February 14, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Why in the world do we need 2 Aircraft carrier groups in that area. The firepower of ONE aircraft carrier group is more than the US Navy in WW2.

True. But then the shoulder held weapons of today are a lot more powerful than those of WW2. If we only had to concern ourselves with WW2 Weapons, one would always be enough. As it is, the weapons of today are a lot more formidable as well.

President Obama made it abundantly clear that we all better be watching our wallets; the tax and spend crowd has a friend in the White House. If you don’t like gun control, immigration reform higher taxes, carbon taxes, more regulations, and windmills this is going to be a tough couple of years, no doubt about that.
However, the only accurate thing about this post is the title as it describes the content. I’ve read through the statistics and claims in the post pretty carefully. Between the cherry picking, rants and insults there really isn’t much substance. Yes the President stretched the truth in the first point. There’s a shocker – a politician exaggerated.
1. “Wrong!!! We buy more “foreign oil” now than we did 20 years ago.”
No doubt that President Obama did a politician’s stretch on this one. It’s been about 14-16 years since crude imports were this low. But the fact is that imports have been falling dramatically since 2006 and they are approaching mid-90s levels.
2. “We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years.”
Your own data shows that the President’s statement was true. Furthermore, you know that oil production in the federal lands in the Gulf slowed because there was a moratorium on exploration following the big spill. He made no claim regarding public vs. private vs. state. And that’s a split hair given what is happening in the Gulf. For example, BP now a total of 14 rigs in the gulf – that’s more than ever according to their reports. Additionally, the rights to many millions of hectares in the GOM will be auctioned off in the near future.
3. “The only red tape you have cut, is red tape that your maladministration created.”
This Administration didn’t create the spill. And most Americans won’t be surprised or disappointed that production was slowed following that accident. There were videos on the nightly news of a gaping hole on the ocean floor spilling millions of barrels of oil. I’m not arguing that the delay was necessary, useful or effective. But the delay was inevitable no matter who controlled the White House.
Returning to the facts for a moment, Federal Gulf Crude production has increased by approximately 5% since this President took office in January of 2009. Your own graph confirms that point. And with the new fields that are coming online forecasts have us at 1.5 million bbl/day in 2014, a 13% increase during the Obama Administration.
4. What do you mean by “our oil and gas revenues”?
You know exactly what he meant by “our” revenues. Show us where you held Mitt Romney (or any other politician) to the same standard when he (they) discussed “our” coal, oil, nuclear, renewables, education system, trips to the moon, agriculture, obesity problem, anything. He wasn’t taking personal credit for drilling a well. This comment is childish and it is a pejorative jab despite your explanations.
5. “Federal mineral revenues for FY 2012 were HALF of what they were in FY 2008!”
Great cherry pick. This one is a doozy.
Since 2008 natural gas has a seen a decrease in price. Due to global economic conditions demand has also fallen. Accordingly revenue decreased. Maybe you’d like to blame that on the President. Fair enough.
But that’s a small piece of the decrease. In 2008 the mineral revenues were extremely high due to the fact that Bonuses were about 10x greater than normal. Here’s the data from 2003 to 2012 which shows that 2008 was an outlier to the tune of $9 Billion:
2003 $1,263,517,244.50
2004 $ 602,801,496.25
2005 $ 798,679,399.50
2006 $1,163,225,776.25
2007 $ 550,571,499.49
2008 $9,682,957,464.55
2009 $1,555,182,756.70
2010 $1,181,441,803.16
2011 $ 270,218,666.17
2012 $ 946,766,723.25
6. “What’s even more ironic? We’re importing 50% more from the Persian Gulf than just three years ago!”
Persian Gulf imports down since 2008, way down since 2002, and we are at 1994 levels. Of course you trimmed that out of the graph. You must own a cherry orchard.

I love it when right-wing hacks just double-down on their toxin pedantry. Too bad, it spoiled what might otherwise have been an interesting discussion.REPLY: I love if when left wing hacks hurl insults without having the integrity to put their name to their own words. – Anthony

I was 17 days old when JFK was assassinated.
Oh? Well, if you lived in a Democrat-dominated county, doubtless you still voted in the 1964 elections. Neither the prepubescent nor the dead were permitted to decline their duties.
I found out about Kennedy getting whacked (a lone gunman; how droll!) when the parochial school I was attending got evacuated on the strength of a wishful bomb scare. Apparently somebody figured that it was open season on the mackerel-snappers.
There was no visceral reaction to my part, in spite of the dismay roiling through the “Greatest Gerneration” all around me. I’d read the books ghostwritten to go under that pretentious oaf’s byline and I’d looked deeper into his war record than the media exaltation of his deadly incompetence as a commander (see PT 109 [1963] and be prepared to hold your gorge), taking sharp note of the fact that only the manchild’s political influence had kept his superiors from standing him before the court-martial he so richly deserved.
I’d been looking forward to him getting voted out in ’64, but – at the time – I counted him no great loss at all.

I said this post is political because it was purely about whether the president was “economical with the truth” in a speech.
I don’t have great expectations of the honesty of politicians. I’m not American and don’t care what Obama said; my point would be the same if someone criticised Bush for his deceitful linking of Saddam Hussain with WMDs and the Twin Towers.
I don’t think it is the role of this site to make issues about one political speech, especially when the points are only tangentially related to climate. For WUWT to provide a platform to political views of either persuasion can only damage it.

brokenyogi says:
February 14, 2013 at 2:03 pm
I love it when right-wing hacks just double-down on their toxin pedantry. Too bad, it spoiled what might otherwise have been an interesting discussion.
REPLY: I love if when left wing hacks hurl insults without having the integrity to put their name to their own words. – Anthony
=====================================================
And without showing examples of said pedantry. Too bad, it spoiled what could have otherwise been an interesting discussion. Instead, it was just a typical left-wing hack response to information they don’t like to hear.

David,
Outstanding summary of the actual facts and exposure of the mis information by the president on the subject of energy et al.. Basically you tore up the Presidents claims. When one sees so many errors in one section of the State of the Union address, it is obvious that the entire speech is also littered with lies and distortions. One other unbelievable statement is that none of his spending programs will contribute one dime to the debt. Can anone say they believe that with a straight face?
David, one question comes to mind in the first chart plots only imported crude, not total fossil fuels. It is common knowledge that a lot of product is imported into the east coast market backing out crude that was previously refined into product in the US. Many refineries on the east Coast have shut down (most recently Hess in NJ, Sunoco in Marc0us Hook, etc..) since they cannot compete with imported product. Does this further distort the false claim?
I realize that the net flow of products is complex and many refineries in the Gulf export product (while often importing crude). Have you seen any data on the net flow of product?
Your work is impressive!!

AndyL,
You must be very new to WUWT. I suggest you look near the top where Mr. Watts has expressed his intent with HIS blog, namely
“Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news –”
If you are only looking for “climate” then you should not be here.

DGH says:
February 14, 2013 at 1:36 pm1. “Wrong!!! We buy more “foreign oil” now than we did 20 years ago.”
No doubt that President Obama did a politician’s stretch on this one. It’s been about 14-16 years since crude imports were this low. But the fact is that imports have been falling dramatically since 2006 and they are approaching mid-90s levels.
Due in no small part to Obama’s policies even though he is more than happy to claim credit for them *cough Iraq Surge, TARP cough*. That’s what Middleton is justifiably ranting about.2. “We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years.”
Your own data shows that the President’s statement was true. Furthermore, you know that oil production in the federal lands in the Gulf slowed because there was a moratorium on exploration following the big spill.
Um, the moratorium was Obama’s idea. Far from being the president –sorry, I just can’t capitalize it with its current occupant– who follows the science, Obama explicitly overruled/ignored his commission’s (NAS/NAE? I don’t recall and I’m too lazy to look it up) recommendation to NOT impose a blanket moratorium in the gulf.
Seems like you have a few cherry pits of your own to swallow.

“We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years.”
“Your own data shows that the President’s statement was true. Furthermore, you know that oil production in the federal lands in the Gulf slowed because there was a moratorium on exploration following the big spill. ”
By the way that moratorium was declared illegal in court when it was tested, and the Judge declared the administration in contempt of court when they ignored the judges ruling and dragged their heels rather than comply with the Judges ruling to resume drilling in the Gulf.
As indicated, it was the administration’ decision and they thumbed their nose at the US Court ruling.http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/02/08/obama-found-in-contempt-of-court-gulf-drilling-moratorium-u-s-federal-judge-rules/

Maybe the word” we” would have been acceptable if the President took the opportunity to praise and honor those workers in the oil business for their hard work to increase the oil and gas production in the US. Truly the industry has done a remarkable job in developing and applying technology while taking huge financial risk to increase our reserves and provide jobs during a difficult climate. Many of the new jobs created in the US during this recession were created in the oil/gas industry and the future is even brighter.http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2012/10/24/creating-jobs-by-drilling/

So TSK, Catracking and I agree…
1. The moratorium on exploration permits that the Administration imposed was a bad decision.
2. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years despite the moratorium.

, I have to navigate the political world’s agendas. For instance our city council hears the “scientific” predictions of rapid sea rise and adopts requirements to raise the ground elevation of new buildings based upon the projections…… at huge additional expense with no pay back. Because they are alarmed by the CO2 narrative they would consider banning fuel derived from the Alberta Tar Sands. My aching head!
There is a precedent of manipulation of the information given to the voting public that is as old as Democracy. It is the Themistocles dilemma. It follows this basic train of logic. “I believe that the Persians are coming, the Athenians believe the long march required of an invading army around the Black Sea would offer time for preparation and see no reason to build ships to protect themselves. If my truth is insufficient how but by misrepresentation do the voters become motivated to vote to build the triremes that are necessary for their defense?” Famously in this long argued political science case study Themistocles invented a threatening pirate fleet that would interrupt Athenian trade. In response to the invention the Athenians built the ships. The furious Persian king, to avoid the march, built a bridge across the Bosporus and his army was immediately at the gates of Athens. The ships were there to save Athens. Is this manipulation acceptable?
It appears to me that one can put this scenario into a general form, and see it being shamelessly applied all around us. The motivation is personal and political gain and the damage is unnerving.
False facts are debilitating and require the time and effort to overcome them. The information is now available and those repeating false claims have to be corrected to start the paradigm shift toward data based decisions sooner rather than later.
Right or wrong I must conform to the political reality. As the hard data mocks the political agenda It is time to change our narrative. I see no particular harm in shining the flashlight on this misinformation …rather than being silent.

David wrote:
“According to a Reuters report, in 2009 the Pentagon paid Solazyme $8.5 million for 20,055 gallons of algae-based biofuel, which works out to $424 a gallon. Last year the order was 450,000 gallons, the biggest-ever biofuel order from government, at a cost of $12 million, which works out to more than $26 a gallon.”
Do you see the trend there ($424/gal. to $26/gal.)?
The first was a research project, the second a demonstration project, and Phase 3 is the commercialization scale-up project (scale-up already proven at a AMD partnered facility, recently).
They are also producing food substitutes for butter, eggs, and vegetable oil, while reducing some of bad stuff in them, like cholesterol. Algae to food for a hungry world.
They will be providing transformer oil (with better characteristics, such as a higher flash point) to DOW from their Bunge partnered facility in Brazil at the end of this year.
Solazyme is a misnomer since the algae is now fermented in closed dark vats – they began in outdoor open ponds, but had contamination problems. SZYM alters the DNA of micro-algae strains, to produce oils with characteristics that don’t exist in nature. They can almost make the algae sing and dance. Sorry for the over-enthusiasm, but…
I am long SZYM (as well as: CVX, RDS, KOG, AXAS, ERF, CHKR, and other “real” oil producers).

I have to navigate the political world’s agendas. For instance our city council hears the “scientific” predictions of rapid sea rise and adopts requirements to raise the ground elevation of new buildings based upon the projections…… at huge additional expense with no pay back. Because they are alarmed by the CO2 narrative they would consider banning fuel derived from the Alberta Tar Sands. My aching head!
There is a precedent of manipulation of the information given to the voting public that is as old as Democracy. It is the Themistocles dilemma. It follows this basic train of logic. “I believe that the Persians are coming, the Athenians believe the long march required of an invading army around the Black Sea would offer time for preparation and see no reason to build ships to protect themselves. If my truth is insufficient how but by misrepresentation do the voters become motivated to vote to build the triremes that are necessary for their defense?” Famously in this long argued political science case study Themistocles invented a threatening pirate fleet that would interrupt Athenian trade. In response to the invention the Athenians built the ships. The furious Persian king, to avoid the march, built a bridge across the Bosporus and his army was immediately at the gates of Athens. The ships were there to save Athens. Is this manipulation acceptable?
It appears to me that one can put this scenario into a general form, and see it being shamelessly applied all around us. The motivation is personal and political gain and the damage is unnerving.
False facts are debilitating and require the time and effort to overcome them. The information is now available and those repeating false claims have to be corrected to start the paradigm shift toward data based decisions sooner rather than later.
Right or wrong I must conform to the political reality. As the hard data mocks the political agenda It is time to change our narrative. I see no particular harm in shining the flashlight on this misinformation …rather than being silent.

half tide rock,
As a long time student of Themistocles, I must point out your glaring fallacy: modern government bureaucrats are not anything like Themistocles, who was one in a million. Therefore, ‘one can not put this scenario into a general form’, as you assert. No, not at all.
Further, your ‘false facts’ encompass the debunked narrative that “carbon” is evil; it is not. In fact, the biosphere is currently starved of harmless, beneficial CO2. More CO2 is better. It is as essential to life as H2O.
The debunked CO2=CAGW conjecture is constantly being falsified by Planet Earth herself. Modern government bureaucrats only hope to cash in on the “carbon” scare, for the tax money.None of the current climate alarmists’ claims are anything like Themistocles. Rather, Themistocles’ opponents are, in fact, the the polar opposites of Themistocles. They are the modern equivalent of unaccountable government bureaucrats; they are rent seekers, nothing like tbe greart Themistocles. They have simply learned to game the system for their own self-serving benefit.
Read some more history. You will benefit by the lessons of great leaders. You will see that the current crop of self-serving government bureaucrats are anything but leaders like the great Themistocles.

David Middleton says:
February 14, 2013 at 6:38 am
We (as in the oil & gas industry) worked very hard, spent our own money and that of our investors to “build that” (the U.S. domestic oil production. The only thing more infuriating than the U.S. gov’t making it more difficult for us to “build that,” is for politicians to claim credit for our success.

About David Middleton – I have been a geoscientist in the evil oil and gas industry for almost 30 years.

# claim to success
With all due respect Mr. Middleton, your personal claim to the success of “the oil & gas industry” seems to be even less well funded than the President’s. Have you invested YOUR own money to “build that”? Or have THEY spent THEIR money on the services of a geoscientist like you?
When the elected president of a country uses “we” when talking about what is going on in an important industry of the country, (almost) everybody understands that he neither invested his own money nor did he actually work for the investors. It’s not his job.
The president’s job is to shape political strategies and sell it to the electorate. When President Obama is saying “we” while referring to developments in the “evil oil industry” he is actually helping that industry succeed, because many of the people who voted for him would rather say “them” like in “stop them”.
I agree that it is very unfortunate that President Obama is using the AGW rhetoric a lot in recent months. But as long as his political base is convinced AGW is real he has to do that. Demonizing Obama is not helpful in changing that.
# childish
You have “zero-point-zero” respect for the just recently re-elected president of your own country? Are you serious? I hope not. I would call people who have absolutely no respect for a democratically elected president totalitarian. I would prefer that people with a totalitarian mindset would not be allowed to write on this blog. But I hope you are just being a little childish again…

At 9:59 PM on 14 February, being manifestly unfamiliar with American history or, indeed, the concept of a representative federal republic chartered under the U.S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) and the premise that the sole legitimate source of sovereignity in such a polity is the individual citizen, Bair Polaire had posted:

You have “zero-point-zero” respect for the just recently re-elected president of your own country? Are you serious? I hope not. I would call people who have absolutely no respect for a democratically elected president totalitarian. I would prefer that people with a totalitarian mindset would not be allowed to write on this blog.

You betcha, and that’s the right of the sovereign citizen as well as his responsibility. We have no reverence for our public servants because they are in no way whatsoever “…a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride [us] legitimately, by the grace of God.”
That is the diametric opposite of “totalitarian,” in fact. It is republican, in the precise sense of that term.

“President Vladimir Putin could never have imagined anyone so ignorant or so willing to destroy their people like Obama much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama. They read history in America don’t they? Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents.”

@Tom in FLA: I agree that back in JFK’s days democrats were more conservative. “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for it.” I directly contrary to Obama’s belief that only the Federal Government can help the people of this country from cradle to grave. I am sickened by the American people who vote for this nonsense.

# Tucci78
Born in 1978? So you were 21 years old when the socialist world imploded in 1989 ? Have you ever visited a “communist” country? Have you ever met people who lived under “communist” rule? Have you ever read Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin? Or a history book for that matter?

Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents.

You don’t seem to know what you are talking about. Insinuating President Obama is a “communist” is just ahistorical nonsense. Partisan rants should not pollute this blog.
The AGW ideology is bad enough. It shouldn’t be confounded with other bad ideologies.
Nobody said you should have “reverence” for your public servants because they are favored “by the grace of god”. But a little more than “zero-point-zero” respect just for the fact that they have been elected by a majority of voters, would that be possible? Even for a Republican republican?
Give it a try! History shows that general disrespect for democratically elected public servants leads to desaster.

Bair Polaire
History shows that general disrespect for democratically elected public servants leads to disaster.
Don’t know what history your talking about. I know there is plenty of disrespect for leaders after disaster. Actually there isn’t necessarily any correlation between performance and respect for an elected leader. Many democratically elected officials successfully blame there own failings on there rivals. They also use common but effective rhetorical devices like name calling…ie “childish”, “totalitarian”. Unfortunately ad hominem tactics work and so do appeals to authority like insisting on respect for elected leaders.

They also use common but effective rhetorical devices like name calling…ie “childish”, “totalitarian”. Unfortunately ad hominem tactics work and so do appeals to authority like insisting on respect for elected leaders.

You have a point here. An ugly tone was set by the author of this post and it continued right to some of the latest comments. Mine included. It’s better to leave it like this and not come back. I just hope this author is not posting again on WUWT.

DGH says:
February 14, 2013 at 8:08 pm
So TSK, Catracking and I agree…
1. The moratorium on exploration permits that the Administration imposed was a bad decision.
2. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years despite the moratorium.
DGH it was not just a bad decision it was illegal and the Judge’s decision was ignored and consequently the Administration was declaired in contempt of court.
Does it bother you that the administration does not respect the court? It bothers me as it reflects on the attitude of following the law and the power of the 3 rd estate.
Also show me where I said that…” we produce more oil at home…” as you indicated.
If we do produce more oil at home, any honest person would admit that it is in spite of the current administration policies which via the EPA et. al. have tried to curtail drilling and production.
We know that current increase in oil production has primarily occurred on non federal lands, Clinton policy of incentivizing deep water drilling in the Gulf, and Bush policies near the end of his administration as shown in the 2008 bump when restrictions expired.

Catracking –
In regards to the moratorium court case, Judge Feldman’s finding that the Administration was in contempt of his order was reversed by a three judge panel in November of 2012. What bothers me is that ill-informed people rely on fictions to justify their disrespect and disdain for this POTUS.
This post is entitled “SOTU: Energy Fabrications, Falsehoods and Fantasies.” My comment demonstrates that the President – with one exception – was absolutely correct in everything (related to this post) that he said in the SOTU.
Thus far you’ve written nothing to refute the factual points that I made. Indeed you’ve now agreed that in 2008 there was boom in Bonus revenues received. That error in the author’s post was perhaps his most egregious and accordingly the most misleading of his claims. It ought to be corrected.
As for attribution – I made no claims in that regard, President Obama made no specific claims in that regard that were raised in this post, and I don’t intend to engage on the issue.

Bair Polaire
History shows that general disrespect for democratically elected public servants leads to disaster.

==========================================================
Sure it does. If the Germans had just saluted their democratically elected public servant back in 1933 the world could have averted disaster a few years later. /sarc

To those who object to the politics of this post, if CAGW (or “Climate Change) hasn’t become political then why was it even mentioned in a political speech? When has the actual science behind the hypothesis and/or models been openly debated? If you think it has then please tell who did it and when.
The “We” thing. Sure, it’s common for a politician to take credit for something someone else has done. But here Obama is implying that his policies have been responsible for any increase in oil and gas production despite the fact that his policies have done everything in his power to restrict them. (Kind of like him claiming 6+ million new jobs and ignoring 5+ millions old jobs lost since he was elected.)
He’s using CAGW as a lever to more power and this post took out one of his fulcrums. Don’t like that? Tough.

Quarterly revenue of $2,285,731, an increase of 154% compared to the three month period ended September 30, 2011, and a 66% increase compared to the three month period ended June 30, 2012. Quarterly production of 27,927 BOE, 304 BOEPD. The 304 BOEPD is an increase of 157% compared to the three month period ended September 30, 2011, and a 58% increase compared to the prior three month period ended June 30, 2012. 97% of total production was from oil. Adjusted EBITDA from ongoing oil and gas operations of $1,052,082 in the quarter ended September 30, 2012, an increase of $847,010, or 413%, from Adjusted EBITDA of $205,072 in the quarter ended September 30, 2011, and an increase of $514,311, or 96%, from Adjusted EBITDA of $537,771 in the three month period ended June 30, 2012. On September 5, 2012, the Company amended its Secured Revolving Credit Agreement with Dougherty Funding LLC, increasing the maximum available from $10,000,000 to $20,000,000 of which $16,500,000 is currently available. As of September 30, 2012, the Company controlled approximately 11,159 net mineral acres in the Bakken and Three Forks formations. In addition, the Company owned working interests in 63 gross wells representing 2.26 net wells that are preparing to drill, drilling, awaiting completion, complete or producing.

Black Ridge Oil and Gas Reports Record Revenue. And your point is?
I disagree, strongly, with this post. It is filled with fabrications, falsehoods and fantasies on the part of the author. And it was disrespectful to the President and the presidency.
But you’re way O/T. And like Gunga Din and Catcracking before you, this does nothing to move the ball.
IMHO

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
What a mixed bag here. Still, thanks David Middleton, and thanks Anthony for hosting David’s fact listing. I really like the mix of puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news. I like the mix, and I like the guest authors.

DGH says:
February 15, 2013 at 8:09 pm
Black Ridge Oil and Gas Reports Record Revenue. And your point is?

On this we agree. The last couple of years have been great profit-wise. We get Brent pricing in most of the Gulf. $120 oil and an inability to spend drilling dollars at a normal pace is great for our EBITDA, not so good for production volumes.

Bair Polaire says:
February 14, 2013 at 9:59 pm
“With all due respect Mr. Middleton, your personal claim to the success of “the oil & gas industry” seems to be even less well funded than the President’s. Have you invested YOUR own money to “build that”? Or have THEY spent THEIR money on the services of a geoscientist like you?”
That was a nasty and uninformed comment. I am sure Mr Middleton is well worth whatever compensation he receives.
I can’t speak for his employer but a lot of the oil industry has offered savings and investment programs for years where the employee either purchases stock or are rewarded with stock of the Company under various programs. Employees of many companies own a significant portion of the company via stocks. My father worked for Sun Oil company in the 50’s and acquired a lot of stock as a blue collar worker.
You would be surprised as to the amout of stock employees own. Many blue collar workers have become financially comfortable in retirement as the result of participating in the programs.
So to answer your question, yes employees of many oil companies do have a stake in the profitability of the company, and this is frequently reflected in the commitment and loyality by employees to do things right to keep the operations running. It is their money, not the government’s that is on the line in the oil business.
They did invest and build that!

Bair Polaire says:
February 14, 2013 at 9:59 pm
David Middleton says:
February 14, 2013 at 6:38 am
We (as in the oil & gas industry) worked very hard, spent our own money and that of our investors to “build that” (the U.S. domestic oil production. The only thing more infuriating than the U.S. gov’t making it more difficult for us to “build that,” is for politicians to claim credit for our success.
About David Middleton – I have been a geoscientist in the evil oil and gas industry for almost 30 years.
# claim to success
With all due respect Mr. Middleton, your personal claim to the success of “the oil & gas industry” seems to be even less well funded than the President’s. Have you invested YOUR own money to “build that”? Or have THEY spent THEIR money on the services of a geoscientist like you?
[…]

D B Stealey: The issue is that we are living a problem and you did a good job describing the essence. My concentration is on what is it? How do we recognize the symptoms and what can we do about changing the situation. It is not giving optimal results. I am making no claim that I am right but I offer these thoughts because I am searching for a better world view. Is it necessary to know exactly what is happening inside the black box if every time I put a dog in I get a cat out?
I am not impugning Themistocles, but rather pointing out the relevance of the dilemma that he had and how the permission of misinformation for the “larger good” has been subsequently embraced as a successful, over used, damaging tool of politics. It is nothing new. When Identified it should immediately disqualify the person who delivers the message. It doesn’t. IN some cases it increases the individual’s political stature. WHY? I have to chuckle I immediately thought to propose the comment “I knew Themistocles and YOU are no Themistocles.” You do understand my point. I have no issue with your throwing up a wall of compare and contrast, it is useful and to the core of the observation I was making. Al Gore is one in 330 million… Americans. Isn’t he passing himself off to the “believers” as your Themistocles? For many he leads he can do no wrong in his green crusade against the economic foundation of Western civilization.
I could have cited the “Taqiyya” for a similar example of permission given to misrepresent for the cause. (‘Umdat al-Salik), pg. 746:
Nietzsche: Nachlass The Notion of Will to Power is revealed as a foundation derivative of Theory of Will to Power suggests a creative misrepresentation “interpreting “would improve our satisfaction.
I am of the opinion that ‘permissive misrepresentation for the cause’ is the essence of the phenomena that we are experiencing.
Propaganda, politically correct thinking and deliberate misinformation of the public on a regular basis are tools that I believe were honed during WWII and in the subsequent Cold War. With the communications revolution, it has become more effective and easier to communicate. Intentional coordination of carefully chosen narrative is the life blood of many financially successful international organizations. See Fenton Communications. They are good at what they do and are proud of their power to create and maintain a global narrative for the benefit of their clients. The clients are willing to pay them handsomely for results. Their clents are coordinated through a common interest. Control of the flow of information and what is on point to achieve a result is a specialty of Fenton Communications. I choose them as my example because of their international presence, pride in their ability and transparency. I see a changing political climate that has enabled this manipulation by providing successful manipulation without negative repercussions. Over time there appears to be no linkage to the manipulated narrative and parties responsible when the body politic’s helpless decision produced bad results.
There is plenty of contrary information in the record but from my perspective having been on the periphery and observing. In the 1970’s when the activists lost hope for the popular revolution in the US, (“Les Miserables” without the massacre), they were also confronted with the picture painted by the Gulag Archipelago. They transformed themselves into a “Green” movement. This transformation was brilliant! Aren’t any of us green at heart? The problem was that they perceived the value of a crisis in order to provide the narrative for the constituency. The outward goal was laudable the foundation was the same, to produce a new world order. I am not sure that goal is in my best interest. If it was then they would not need to hide it by levels of misrepresentation. The crisis is whatever fills the bill. They found out about the interstadial period. Probably in Nat Sci 6 .They found out about the increasing CO2. M King Hubbard was suggesting the doom of the age of hydrocarbon energy and by extension the end of western civilization. There are many more examples.
We were not taking care of our environment and there were some pretty graphic and shameful examples available. The US industrial machine was the former enemy and now the obvious enemy of the earth. There is nothing more worthwhile than to be passionate about taking care of our planet. Good people recognized that the Appalachian Trail was being turned into a 2,200 mile garbage dump and self-policed a new and appropriate respect. The fear of an oil spill stopped oil refineries in Maine yet after 40 years our neighbors to the north with new refineries have saved their economy by providing us( while still exposing us to the risk) with what we would not allow ourselves. There are a majority of good people who are passionate about leaving the planet in better condition than we found it and the foundation of the passion is compelling. I join them but I diverge where it is deemed necessary and appropriate to lie.
At the same time a great and cynical political opportunity was presenting itself. When interstadial climate change and CO2 became the scare mechanism there were serious objections raised to the legitimacy of the claims. My observation was that when the radicalized or politically motivated were confronted with more contrary data than they could deal with or ignore, the last straw that they grabbed was for permission to misrepresent in the pursuit of a greater cause. One of them introduced me to Themistocles as a practical political lesson of how to get good done “creatively.” Not having taken a government course in permissible misrepresentation, I cling to his excuse as my personal Political Science lesson.
Carbon dioxide lags temperature change in the record and therefore cannot be the cause of climatic temperature change. 16 words. QED or put up. Next problem.
It is completely understandable to me that a true believer would embrace any excuse to succumb to the fallacy of authority or any other fallacy offered. It is reasonable to expect any ideology to cling to every straw to maintain its narrative. Thus the difficulty of changing the narrative based upon data reveals itself.
As a study of persuasive dishonesty and manipulation I give you the former Vice President of the United States who has been leading the political power grab to control CO2 and personally profit by Carbon Credit Trading. His efforts have been completely consistent with the thinking of world transformation into a “new order.” The funding for this change is in the ceding of taxing control over CO2 production to the United Nations.
Can any objective individual accept a photograph of a polar bear on an ice flow as proof of anything more than summer weather? What is more interesting could a person as smart as Al Gore who graduated with honors in “GOVERNMENT” and a D in Nat SCI 6. ( Man’s Place in Nature) actually believe the fallacy filed narrative he was presenting to his loyal, trusting followers. It is impossible to defend the misrepresentations on the basis of ignorance. They fail simple tests of logic. Because they are so transparently false they can only be explained as willful, permissable misrepresentation for the cause. All brought forward with intent and cynicism by the “Great Leader.”
Time is a cure for many ills. We can inspect his cynicism in the choices he made as he dismantled his political machine and sold out his believers to REALLY BIG oil. Does the dedicated Gore warrior for saving the earth wake up to the realization that the leader had no qualms put 100 million in his pocket and sold out to the enemy? It may be too much to comprehend.
It perks my ears up even today as I hear pleas for absolution for lies or stretching the truth because of the worthiness of the cause; any cause. Often we see these excuses in the context of the present data driven retreat as the alarmist models are no longer taken seriously by the few people who even care. The misrepresentations have by cleverness become folk lore.
So why beyond the fact that radicalized people want to believe has it been so hard to bring science through the period of manipulation. I believe that the decisions based upon misrepresentation and the cause itself has significantly hurt our country and quality of life. If you believe in the intent then this effect was intentional. Is it treason? It is counter intuitive that our society would cling fiercely to harmful decisions. Why? Isn’t the definition of “stupid” the act of willfully doing something that hurts you and everyone else too? Perhaps we are being “helpless” which is is doing something that hurts yourself and helps some one else. Why would we?
I suggest that the political and financial power to be gained by having the public cede control over the carbon based economy made significant investment and coordination between common allies the narrative profitable inevery sense of the word. There exists a small strong political and financial group that does benefit when the body politic engages in stupidity or charitably helpless acts. Bandits are those who steal from others for their own benefit. These are the entities that benefit.
There is a significant common interest across a broad spectrum of opportunistic individuals and organizations. Political consensus is only needed long enough for the body politic to cede the power. They have been very close to succeeding even while the data is showing that the models used to create the narrative fail. The proof of a larger goal is that the narrative isn’t changing with the data. It is telling to read the cynicism of the elite think tank, Club of Rome.
Where can we find examples of the inertia that is slowing the paradigm shift we might expect?
A short course on fundraising for nonprofits is “ We request your support because there is a significant global problem, and our organization does a fine job addressing a small but significant part of the problem.” If you want to raise funds to save the polar bears it is particularly helpful if someone with gravitas declare them, endangered due to climate change that we are responsible for. Help save the polar bear from ….them (Us). Out comes the memory of the picture of the polar bears enjoying the bergy bit on the fine summer day, and the authoritative but illogical cause driven narrative. The groups that benefit from the narrative are linked, opportunistic and as a minimum loosely coordinated. Evidence to refute the statement of linkage is propaganda.
When the Canadian government releases contrary data it is merely an inconvenient counterpoint in a mass of posturing by organizations that are not going to let go of the narrative easily. Trot out a contrary opinion through a competent media blitz and the Canadian scientific data and conclusion is ignorable. Ideologues and those who are the bandits must retreat slowly at best. Can you imagine, “ Yup our bad, thanks Canada the Polar Bear is OK guess the problem doesn’t exist. We are no longer needed and we’ll declare success and go out of business.” What about the cute little panda?
Darwin made the comment on the enervating damage to scientific progress by the use of false facts. His observation is just as true today. If we step back to gain perspective we are seeing the struggle Darwin understood personally. There are plenty of other examples but I like Darwin. The resistance to new interpretation of data is a fundamental to the nature of the advancement of science. Scientific method demands skepticism. Skepticism is not a pejorative in science only in politics. Today we see the difficulty that scientists are experiencing as they laboriously bring forward the data that refutes the bandits political narrative. The frustration I feel is global and beyond a graph of data vs models that a fourth grader could interpret. And an astonished realization that data is of no interest or import and so the narrative doesn’t experience the pressure to appropriately adjust.
The sad reality is that the truth is fairly boring and the truth is continuously under attack by the whole universe of clever lies. In an hour a convenient misrepresentation for the cause of the bandits can be born and released all over the world. Refuting anything the imagination can conjecture from a scientific perspective now requires a rigorous program that in itself is vulnerable to intentional misbehavior ( for the cause) that was revealed in the University of East Anglia e-mail leaks.
Look at this lineage: Students for Democratic Society, Environmental Defense Fund Al Gore and Carbon credit trading, Barry Schaff Environmental Media Services, Real Climate, Fenton Communications, Tides Foundation , 350.0rg, Heinz Foundation, Science Communications Network, Nasa, Goddard, James Hanson, Michael Mann, University of East Anglia, IPCC, United Nations, Club of Rome, WWF, Sierra Club, Green Peace, Disney, National Geographic etc.. Add your own experience of additional connections in this framework it is already impressive in its reach.
It is instructive to look at the membership of the Club of Rome and google their contributions. ( Club of Rome is just a convenience and I don’t mean to pick on them except for the fact of the transparency between their membership, publically stated goals and the consistency of the easily researched member activism.) I am very skeptical that someone or an organization or a movement has my best interest at heart when I catch them lying to me or advocating lies. Catching a lie is the irrefutable warning that the information received is asking for me to make a decision which is not otherwise in my best interest.
1991- Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, “new enemies must be identified.”[2] “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”[3]
Now that the data clearly doesn’t support our narrative ( my comment). “ It is time to take climate change action to the streets.” Attributed to Michael Brune, Sierra Club Director Feb 13. 2013. James Hanson was also arrested February 13th 2013. This is pretty desperate stuff.
Michael Brune: “And so we know that we can’t win on climate change if we continue to dither, if we continue to talk about it but not do anything. And so, the Sierra Club is engaging in civil disobedience for the first time, because we have a moral catastrophe on our hands, and we need to do everything that we can to compel stronger, bolder action.”
If climate change is natural and the data shows that the alarmist models fail and the premises of AGW are inconsistent with the observed data, and there is no indication that changes in CO2 production and taxation will do anything but harm our quality of life, what is the desperate individual’s motivation?
Does this indicate that the Club of Rome approach to their larger goal isn’t working with in the time frame that the false narrative is viable or is civil unrest and intimidation just another convenience when the misrepresentation for the cause fails to produce the sufficient momentary consensus to cede power?
In my opinion these things are worth contemplating by a group of, as George Bernard Shaw would point out, UNREASONABLE people.

Pres. Obama: So tonight, I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good.
What do you mean by “our oil and gas revenues”? You don’t generate any oil and gas revenue. The Federal gov’t does generate some revenue from the private sector development of Federal mineral leases.

I stand corrected… And shockingly so.

Obama Clean-Energy Fund Would Gain If Oil Drilling Expanded
By Jim Snyder – Feb 14, 2013
President Barack Obama’s proposal to fund clean-energy research with fees paid by oil and gas producers is renewing a debate over whether the promise of innovation tomorrow is worth expanding drilling today.
Obama’s “Energy Security Trust” — which he announced this week in the State of the Union address — would redirect about $200 million in royalties for drilling on federal lands to pay for the development of biofuels, electric batteries and cars and trucks powered by natural gas, the White House said yesterday. The trust would operate for 10 years and spend a total of $2 billion.
While Obama’s plan doesn’t open new areas to producers, clean-energy advocates say the idea of an oil-backed fund could ensure further support for fossil fuel alternatives even in an era of austerity and federal budget cuts.
[…]Bloomberg

I am shocked that Pres. Obama was actually referring to ONRR revenue and not alluding to a new tax.
That said, his actions have suppressed ONRR revenue and he shows no signs of letting up on that suppression. It’s $12 billion less than it was when he took office. At least $3 billion can be tied directly to the moratorium. Another $7 billion is likely due to the permitorium. $2 billion might be due to declining gas production in the Gulf. This was declining prior to the moratorium.
The permitorium included the cancellation of lease sales 215 and 216, the near tripling of the minimum bid on deepwater leases and the shortening of many deepwater lease terms from 10 to 7 years. Leasing activity was just starting to recover from Ike and the crash of 2008-2009 when the unlawful moratorium and subsequent permitorium killed that recovery.GOM Leasing Activity and ONRR Revenu
With leasing activity subdued and permit approvals dragged out from 30-60 to more than 365 days, the ONRR revenue from the Gulf is at least $3 billion and more likely $10 billion lower that it should be.

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy